Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @07:50PM
from the paying-more dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Back in April 2012, the U.S. Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple and a number of publishers for allegedly colluding to raise the price of e-books on the iBookstore. As part of its investigation into Apple's actions, the Justice Department collected evidence which it claims demonstrates that Apple was the 'ringmaster' in a price fixing conspiracy. Specifically, the Justice Department claims that Apple wielded its power in the mobile app market to coerce publishers to agree to Apple's terms for iBookstore pricing."

Because it really only takes a couple of people at the top level, everybody else will just follow orders. See the price fixing on DRAM and LCDs to see how you had price fixing covering companies halfway across the world from each other but it really only took a handful of high level board members to get it set up.

This is why I've been saying that while its great we're not seeing "site requires IE" anymore we have to be vigilant so we don't replace one master with another. Just look at how Apple is trying to ram through DRM into HTML V5 after killing an open codec minimum for HTML V5 for patent trolls MPEG-LA (which of course doesn't hurt them as they can pay the license fees) and how everybody tripped over themselves to kiss the ring of St Steve and cheering the death of Flash...when in reality it was simply Apple making sure nothing ran on Apple hardware that they didn't get a cut.

So we really have to watch it, because unlike MSFT whose efforts are hamfisted and so obvious Stevie Wonder could spot them the marketing team at Apple is fucking brilliant and can sell AC units to Eskimos and as we saw with IE once you let a company get too powerful it takes ages to undo the damage.

when in reality it was simply Apple making sure nothing ran on Apple hardware that they didn't get a cut.

Yeah, it totally sucks that I can't run Flash and Silverlight on my Mac. Oh wait, I can install both with zero restrictions outside of Adobe and Microsoft's license agreements. Apple sells more than the iOS devices.

Regardless, Flash is still a huge piece of shit, and everyone should be happy with it's demise. It's a zero-sum change moving from DRM in Flash / Silverlight to DRM in HTML5, except that it

Such activities involve a pretty large number of people. It's interesting how they collectively can keep it a secret for a pretty long time.

Actually, such conspiracies involve a surprisingly small number of people. 1 from each company and maybe their aide.

A large number of people may be involved in the activity, but not the conspiracy so they wont know what is going on, sometimes even the companies CEO doesn't know whats going on.

But this is for traditional price fixing, Apple's been quite open about setting a minimum price for e-books for some time. You may remember a few years back they threatened publishers with banishment if they sold

If someone bought from Amazon before Apple got into the business, and then continued buying from Amazon after Apple got into the business with the same or lower prices, how did they get hurt again? It's not like e-books are a finite commodity.

You might be able to make an argument for Amazon getting hurt, but I don't see it for the non-Apple customer.

Amazon had a monopoly which they used to abuse the publishers. Apple made separate deals with each publisher (which is not collusion or price-fixing) which broke Amazon's monopoly.

Did you not read the article? Prices went up. Sellers agreed to only sell on an agency basis and not a wholesale basis. Please tell me how this is good for consumers? And the reason prices went up? Apple colluded with publishers to remove their books from Amazon if Amazon would not agree to sell at a higher price. How is that not price-fixing?

Price fixing does not require a monopoly to be illegal. The FTC routinely targets price fixing in the DRAM market and there is no monopoly in that highly competitive market. In fact there have been at least 3 lawsuits by the FTC that I'm aware of that targeted price fixing in the DRAM market.

All your other arguments are meaningless against that one simple fact. Price fixing in collusion with others to force set prices in a market is illegal and has been for a very long time. Stop being a bloody fanboi, Apple colluded with the publishers and as a result eBook prices went up significantly. It's Apple's collusion that caused eBook prices to rise above the pricing for dead tree versions. If you had purchased eBook's before Apple's illegal market manipulation you would know that you could routinely purchase eBooks for less than half the paper price and after the manipulation paper was often cheaper. That's the height of market manipulation, This market manipulation cost the American book purchasers Billions. Apple shouldn't just have to pay money, the people behind it should be given prison terms.

Apple may not have had a monopoly but the Publishers combined did. Apple is accused of creating a monopoly by forming a trust between the Publishers. At the time Apple also had an monopoly with the IPad. For several years they were the only tablet that people purchased.

1. Apple does not have an app monopoly (required for this to be illegal)

This is something you have made up. Price fixing can be illegal in the absence of a monopoly.

2. App "dominance", even monopoly, has no bearing on book sellers (how is Apple supposed to leverage this against them?).

Again, you failed to RTFA:

When Random House ultimately signed on the dotted line, Eddy Cue sent an email to Jobs stating that one of the reasons Random House agreed to Apple's terms was because "I prevented an app from Random House from going live in the app store."

Looks like a clear example of Apple using its app store to leverage agreements on prices.

3. Even assuming they have a monopoly (they don't, but just for argument's sake), in what way did they exploit this?
4. It's funny how supposedly "Android is winning", but somehow Apple is a monopoly.

Your frequent remarks about monopolies are pure strawman arguments. Probably invented by you because of your blind support for Apple.

5. Publishers could have easily not gone with Apple's offer. Amazon was eBook monopoly at the time (which is exactly why they went with that deal, to leverage against Amazon!), and are still the dominant eBook seller (60% market share).

That claim is refuted by the facts. Publishers were able to do exactly what you claim they could not: "gone with Apple's offer".

This was just a shrewd business deal which gave power back to the publishers and busted the Amazon monopoly (which they were actually abusing against other book sellers, and even the publishers themselves!).

Yeah, great monopoly busting: resulting in increased prices. Yeah, that's the way to go. Don't want those dirty monopolies that result in lower prices.

This reads an AWFUL lot like talking points handed out by publishers' PR departments (vetted by, and with contributions from, legal). I mean, that's what I would say if people called me on unwarranted 600% markups on a product. And if all the other publishers wanted to mark up the automated transfer of digital files so that the cost to the consumer was the same as for the purchase, printing, warehousing, and distribution of paper books...why no "collusion" there! That's just coincidence!

Yeah, great monopoly busting: resulting in increased prices. Yeah, that's the way to go. Don't want those dirty monopolies that result in lower prices.

Many readers here may have been brainwashed in grade school into believing that monopolies are always harmful. That's certainly one type of monopoly, which usually exists because of some artificial grant to it by a State, but it's also possible (and we have had) monopolies which exist simply because one co

The collusion and price fixing was not between the publishers. The collusion and price fixing was the switch to the agency model and the guarantee that nobody could sell books to the public for a lower price than Apple. Amazon was using it's clout to force prices down. Apple was using it's clout to force prices up - for EVERYONE. As to the anti-trust aspect - there is no law against being the biggest at something. There is no law against being a monopoly at something. There IS a law against using the fact that you are dominant in one area to use anti-competitive tactics in a different area. It does not matter at all even if Apple had 0% of the ebook market. What mattered is that they used there dominant position in one market (mobile apps and iTunes) to make it impossible for anyone to compete with them in a different market (ebooks). How did they make it impossible to compete? By fixing the price.

Are you really that stupid? Price fixing is when a MINIMUM price to the public for A PARTICULAR ITEM has been set. Since two publishers do NOT sell the same books, how could they possibly be in collusion? The price was fixed because Apple had a deal that NOBODY could sell to the public at a price lower than they could. The collusion was between Apple and the individual publishers. It was collusion because Apple said 'We can sell all the books you like, at a higher price than you are getting now. Stop wholesaling to everyone else and switch to the agency model. And once you do that, make sure nobody can sell your book at a lower price than we can'. If you can't see what is wrong with that, there really is no hope for you.

The point is not that 'Book A' costs exactly the same as 'Book B'. The point is that NOBODY can sell 'Book A' for a lower price than anyone else.

The problem with your definition is that minimum advertised price (MAP) policies are generally considered to be legal (since about 2008), and they're unfortunately fairly common—Canon and Nikon, many major clothing companies, etc. There's little difference between a typical MAP and the agency model with a "most favored nation" clause beyond that a reseller is requiring the manufacturer to set a MAP in order to sell through that channel. If the MAP itself isn't anticompetitive, then neither is an MF

you can lower prices to whatever the shit you want, but individual deals with every publisher is what this wasn't. Low prices are not by themselves predatory, even at $0. This was collectively agreeing to the same thing and signing for it individually.

Sounds like Amazon's monopoly was broken. What's the problem with that again?

Amazon gained its market share by competing on price, Apple got forming a cartel with publishers using price-fixing.

Amazon had a monopoly which they used to abuse the publishers. Apple made separate deals with each publisher (which is not collusion or price-fixing) which broke Amazon's monopoly.

This is exactly how the market is supposed to work. Where once there was one eBook provider, there are now four major providers. Apple is not even the biggest one! How can that be a monopoly or even a trust?

The bottom line is non-apple customers are being hurt by this, including children.

Seriously, how can you say something like this with a straight face? That's straight-up trolling.

Prices went up 50% in a single day when this agreement went into effect. Regardless of the free market principles of the thing, every consumer lost.

One problem is that prices went up 50% literally overnight when Apple got all the publishers to agree to force Amazon and other sellers to charge more.

Two problems there. First where's the evidence that eBook prices went up at all, let alone 50%. People have found individual cases of books that went up, and books that went down. 50% is far too round a number to represent anything other than somebody making up statistics on the spot.

For their part, Apple claims average ebook price went down from $7.97 to $7.34. Can you prove them wrong?

Secondly, you repeat the Justice Department's assertion that Apple orchestrated price fixing. It's an allegation not a fac

The Justice department claims that Apple is the ringmaster in an ebook price fixing case. Can you prove them wrong?For my part, I'll trust the justice department

For my part, I won't pre-judge the court-case. But I will challenge some clearly bogus claims by people here such as ebook prices "went up 50% literally overnight",

And other bogus claims such as "yet the only one you respond to (which also does a great job of showing how wrong you are) you dismiss because it makes a "think of the children!" argument." There are very few posts that I don't respond to. The only real exception is ACs, I usually ignore them.

Sounds like Amazon's monopoly was broken. What's the problem with that again?

Monopolies aren't necessarily a bad thing. Instead of Amazon having a "monopoly" and charge decent prices. Apple and the Big 5 formed their own "monopoly" and charged higher prices... So in this case, for the consumer, it was a very bad thing

Amazon was operating under a normal wholesale/retail model. They bought from the publisher for some agreed-on price, and sold the books to the public for a price they set (which could be higher or lower than what they paid the publisher). Apple convinced the publishers to stop selling to Amazon and switch to an agency model. Under the agency model, the publisher set the price the public paid, and gave the retailers a cut of that. Apple also managed to write into the contracts that nobody could get less of a cut than Apple. That is price fixing.

Amazon was operating under a normal wholesale/retail model. They bought from the publisher for some agreed-on price, and sold the books to the public for a price they set (which could be higher or lower than what they paid the publisher). Apple convinced the publishers to stop selling to Amazon and switch to an agency model. Under the agency model, the publisher set the price the public paid, and gave the retailers a cut of that. Apple also managed to write into the contracts that nobody could get less of a cut than Apple. That is price fixing.

No that is not price fixing. Walmart and Amazon and everyone else with clout signs contracts that say they must always be given the lowest price. And nearly all goods makers have contracts with sellers that fix the lowest price a good can be advertised at. (that's why you see those signs on web pages that say "add to cart to see price"-- cause they can't advertise it.

Yes, Amazon and Walmart, etc have contracts that say THEY will be given the lowest cost. However, Amazon, Walmart, and everyone else can set whatever price their customer pays. Prices are not 'fixed' in that scenario. One retailer may use their lower cost to lower the price for their customers, someone else may use their lower cost to increase their profits. Even someone who was not given a lower cost can sell to the public for a lower price than Amazon or Walmart if they want. In the agency model, the PUBLISHER sets the price the final customer, not the retailer, pays. And the deal with Apple (nobody gets less of a cut than us) means that even if Amazon were to say 'Apple is getting a 30% cut, we'll take 20%, cut our customers price accordingly', they publishers can't do it. The price has been fixed.

Under the Apple deal, there is NO WHOLESALE. The publisher sets the price the customer pays, and gives the retailer a percentage of that. Therefore, a retailer CAN NOT undersell Apple. Even if a retailer was willing to take a loss on the book, that just means the publisher gets more money, because the price to the consumer stays the same.

The agency model (which Apple got the publsihers to switch to) is like a real estate agent. The homeowner (publisher) sets the price o

Amazon was operating under a normal wholesale/retail model. They bought from the publisher for some agreed-on price, and sold the books to the public for a price they set (which could be higher or lower than what they paid the publisher). Apple convinced the publishers to stop selling to Amazon and switch to an agency model. Under the agency model, the publisher set the price the public paid, and gave the retailers a cut of that. Apple also managed to write into the contracts that nobody could get less of a cut than Apple. That is price fixing.

Using a 'favoured nation' policy to force suppliers to charge Apple's cut to non-Apple customers or eat the cost is an abuse of their market position (more-so at the time than now) and should be very illegal.

Proposed penalty:
1. Refund customers 30% for every bit of electronic media they sold since they started this corrupt practice.
2. 2-year ban on Apple selling electronic media -- e-books, music and video.

"The purpose of this lawsuit is to enjoin the Publisher Defendants and Apple from further violations of the nation's antitrust laws and to restore the competition that has been lost due to the Publisher Defendants' and Apple's illegal acts. Defendants'ongoing conspiracy and agreement have caused e-book consumers to pay tens of millions of dollars more for e-booksthan they otherwise would have paid"

Not defending Apple's pricing, in fact I think that they are in many ways douchebags, but why is this an antitrust situation? They are negotiating with vendors to reach the price point they desire. They are just reaching for a higher price point, instead of a lower one. They can't set their prices to what their customers will bear? I'm not about to click all of the links in the article, which isn't much of an article, but unless they were colluding with these publishers to charge higher prices everywhere

The DoJ's case alleges that the agency pricing model had a clause where the publisher wouldn't sell their books in other stores for less than they were charging in the iBookstore. If true, this is Collusion, and falls under anti-trust laws. http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/collusion/ [uslegal.com]

Thanks. I don't use iTunes, or iAnything, but the reported prices in the article ($12.99 to $14.99) are equal to or less than typical prices on Amazon and B it's dawning on me now that if Apple's been strongarming the publishers to achieve this situation, then, yes, that could be antitrust behavior. I was initially thinking they were colluding to fix prices artificially high for themselves, when it seems it was to raise other vendor's prices. Actions like refusing to approve apps for the crap store if the

It is all in how you say it; if you say that if the publisher offers a better price to another outlet, they must match that price for Apple, then it is ok. The tricky part is that if Apple's clause says that Apple can match any other retailer's price and give the publisher 30%, but that would seem like it still isn't collusion; it creates a situation where selling to Amazon at wholesale is better than selling to Apple at an Agency model. Hence the publisher's collusion amongst themselves to force Amazon to the agency model.

What I understand of the agreement seems pretty clean from Apple's perspective, but not as much for the publishers.

"What I understand of the agreement seems pretty clean from Apple's perspective, but not as much for the publishers."

Which is of course why they've been accused of being the ringmasters, because it's clean from Apple's perspective.

Still, it's not as if the people who called Apple the ringmasters in this case are legal professionals or anything is it. At least we have a random Joe on Slashdot to clarify the situation who obviously knows the law better.

The DoJ's case alleges that the agency pricing model had a clause where the publisher wouldn't sell their books in other stores for less than they were charging in the iBookstore. If true, this is Collusion, and falls under anti-trust laws. http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/collusion/ [uslegal.com]

No it's not. Almost every major retailer insists on the lowest price. Walmart does, Amazon does.

The DoJ's case alleges that the agency pricing model had a clause where the publisher wouldn't sell their books in other stores for less than they were charging in the iBookstore. If true, this is Collusion, and falls under anti-trust laws. http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/collusion/ [uslegal.com]

The definition isn't that long. Here it is:

Collusion occurs when two persons or representatives of an entity or organization make an agreement to deceive or mislead another. Such agreements are usually secretive, and involve fraud or gaining an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or others with whom they are negotiating. The collusion, therefore, makes the bargaining process inherently unfair. Collusion can involve price or wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence

Putting pressure on your suppliers is not predatory or illegal. Every successful business pressures it's suppliers. Sometimes the pressure is cost, sometimes delivery, sometimes quality, etc. You may as well complain that the consumers are the real predators here, because they are the ones who want the low prices from Amazon, Walmart, etc.

From what I understand, apple and publishers basically all wanted to set ebook prices for the range of 12.99 to 14.99. Apple threatened to (and did) block apps for publishers that didn't agree or didn't jump on board right away, as leverage. It's kind of a big deal because Apple was hoping to negotiate things in a way to prevent wholesale outlets, like Amazon, from having a choice in setting ebook pricing by having having deals with all the publishers that released all the ebooks through Apple first (at f

Thanks. I did some more research on it, and realized that I misunderstood the problem when I first read (skimmed?) the article. It seems they were using strongarm tactics to coerce the publishers into charging higher prices to their competition. I don't use iAnything, and really have no idea how big Apple's book store is, or how many e-books they sell. My library system has quite a selection of e-books for checkout, and I prefer to do that over buying them, anyway.

The issue is how much collusion was there between Apple and the publishing companies to set these prices--which, according to the e-mails, was quite a bit. Apple was working to craft an agreement that all the publishers would agree to, not individual agreements with the publishers. That's collusion.

Not defending Apple's pricing, in fact I think that they are in many ways douchebags, but why is this an antitrust situation? They are negotiating with vendors to reach the price point they desire. They are just reaching for a higher price point, instead of a lower one..... If Apple's customers are such zealots that they won't consider other sources for their media, let them pay the prices.

Well whether you are a zealot or not, you don't have a choice BUT to pay Apple's prices. Even if you want to buy from Amazon. This wasn't about Apple setting a higher price point for Apple, this is about Apple forcing the publishers to set a higher price point for EVERYONE.

Sorry, I initially misunderstood the problem - I was cooking dinner and more or less skimmed the article. I was thinking they were colluding to enable them to fix their prices at a higher price point, then it dawned on me that they were colluding to raise the publisher's prices to other vendors so they could undercut them, and using strongarm tactics to do it... Thinking a little slow tonight - had a reading comprehension fail!:-)

Vertical price fixing pertains to arrangements between a manufacturer, distributor, supplier or retailer. Horizontal price fixing, which would involve competitors colluding to set prices, remains illegal. Courts have held that vertical maximum price fixing, like the majority of commercial arrangements subject to the antitrust laws, should be evaluated under the rule of reason. Therefore, suppliers of goods and services don't necessarily violate antitrust laws by setting maximum prices their retailers can charge.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/price-fixing/
I don't like Apple, as in refuse to buy their products and services, but this seems like Vertical price fixing which seems fair as this agreement guarantee's Apple prices are fair within the market of that particular eBook.

I don't like Apple, as in refuse to buy their products and services, but this seems like Vertical price fixing which seems fair as this agreement guarantee's Apple prices are fair within the market of that particular eBook.

As a long time and faithful Apple user. this is about a Catel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel [wikipedia.org] "A cartel is a formal (explicit) "agreement" among competing firms. It is a formal organization of producers and manufacturers that agree to fix prices, marketing, and production.[1] Cartels usually occur in an oligopolistic industry, where the number of sellers is small (usually because barriers to entry, most notably startup costs, are high) and the products being traded are usually homogeneous. Cartel members

But they don't fit the definition of cartel. The agreement is not between Amazon and Apple. It's between Apple and someone selling an eBook.. If Apple and Amazon had an agreement, as in a Horizontal price fix, then it would be a cartel.
If I were to have a book on the store, I could prize my book at $20 on Amazon, and if tell apple they can sell it at $25, they have the right to not allow purchases through their store. Im not sure why someone would do that other than the hope people probably blindly buy

It is not completely legal just because the agreements are written on different sheets of paper. That is moronic. They have a witness testifying about collusion. About meetings with Apple discussing what other publishers want.

The difference here is Apple are imposing that minimum price on deals that the publishers have with other stores. THAT isn't legal. Basically they are fixing the price for every store to ensure they cannot be beaten on price. You can happily make deals for price you obtain goods, you can happily sell for below what they recommend you sell for or advertise for. you CANNOT demand that no other store is permitted to undercut you.

Is there any case where a price floor has been found to be illegal? Apple is providing them with a "service" of advertising and purchasing. They aren't forcing companies to sell their product on the iStore.

From the Sherman Act

"The agreement to inhibit price competition by raising, depressing, fixing, or stabilizing prices is the most serious example of a per se violation under the Sherman Act. Under the act, it is immaterial whether the fixed prices are set at a maximum price, a minimum price, the actual cost, or the fair market price. It is also immaterial under the law whether the fixed price is reasonable. All horizontal and vertical price-fixing agreements are illegal per se.

I don't even care if they hurt Apple. I just want things to be good for consumers again. Force the publishers to have to negotiate again on an individual basis. Thats all I, the customer, care about. Apple can do whatever the hell it wants, as long as it is legal.

If I had free choice of punishments i'd say chain them up in the stocks for a week or two and let people throw rotten fruit at them. Then send them to do hard labour for a year or so in a remote mining camp with the condition that any attempt to access or borrow against the wealth they have in their life outside punishment will result in permanent confiscation of that wealth. Visits from friends and family would be allowed but at least half

I thought, "send them off for a few years of hard labour", then my brain started thinking though how such a sentance could work in the modern world. Forbidding their friends and family from contact completely would be too cruel IMO, OTOH having rich friends and family jetting in all the time and bring expensive gifts wouldn't seem like much of a punishment.

I don't belive conventional prison is appropriate for most white collar criminals but I do belive they need to have their luxuries taken away and be

We can argue all we want about just who colluded with whom, but why not fix the root problem? Digital data are always going to be copied (and copy-able), and the sooner the law recognizes that, the sooner publishers as well as retailers (including Apple and Amazon) will adjust their prices to what people are willing to pay. As a close friend said to me,"Keep finding me free epubs on the net until the store price drops below $5." iTunes, for example, continues to sell a zillion tracks despite the plethora of torrent files available. The same model (i.e. acceptable price point) will work for books.

Its not amusing at all. Amazon dominate by competing on old fashioned things like price, Not being corrupt. I find it sick that your defending a mega corporation (again), when the illegal corrupt actions affect everyone.

Man I fucking love using market share as metric! Since it is a unitless number it can be used to say anything you want. So under the old model, Amazon controlled 90% of the [market for eBooks]. After publishers instituted their new pricing scheme Amazons market share fell to 60% of [the market for eBooks]. That sounds absolutely terrible!

Unless of course you realize market share is a unitless number that doesnt tell us jack shit. Before publishers changed their prices we dont know what the size of the eBook market was so we dont know what Amazons unit sales or dollar sales were for that time period. After publishers changed their prices we still dont know what the size of the eBook market was so were still unable to tell what Amazons unit or dollar sales were.

Without knowing Amazons unit or dollars sales it is impossible to know if they were materially affected by the change in publisher prices. With Apple entering the eBook retailer arena and thus bringing an eBook store to many tens of millions of iPhones, iPods, and iPads they very likely increased the overall size of the eBook market. Google also entered the fray selling books and magazines in this period of time.

Google and Apple selling eBooks likely increased the total size of the eBook market which means unless Amazons sales grew in that same period at the same rate as the total market their share of that market could only decrease. This isnt rocket surgery. Market share simply cannot show that competitors ate Amazons market share or if their share decreased from market growth. As such market sahre cant possibly be used to show that publishers changing their pricing model positively or negatively affected Amazon. This isnt about defending megacorporations but about not using stupid numbers to make definitive arguments.

Man I fucking love using market share as metric! Since it is a unitless number it can be used to say anything you want

No market share means just that market share. If you want to express a number meaning % of the market irrespective of the size of the market you would use that. In this instance its the perfect metric.

Amazon didn't lose share because of Apple. If they had Apple would have gained 40%. But instead B&N gained 20% and Apple, Sony, and Kobo split the rest. As the market grew other companies picked up customers. Nothing to do the price fixing Apple was involved in.

Its not amusing at all. Amazon dominate by competing on old fashioned things like price, Not being corrupt. I find it sick that your defending a mega corporation (again), when the illegal corrupt actions affect everyone.

It's quite... fascinating, how you can defend a monopoly and demonize the company that broke the monopoly, doing the very thing you just defended the monopoly for doing in the first place!

Apple entered the book market and competed against Amazon doing the very thing you laud Amazon for doing: they competed on price!

Its not amusing at all. Amazon dominate by competing on old fashioned things like price, Not being corrupt. I find it sick that your defending a mega corporation (again), when the illegal corrupt actions affect everyone.

It's quite... fascinating, how you can defend a monopoly and demonize the company that broke the monopoly, doing the very thing you just defended the monopoly for doing in the first place!

Apple entered the book market and competed against Amazon doing the very thing you laud Amazon for doing: they competed on price!

That's some highly potent fanboy fanaticism in action!

Apple did compete on price - they competed by demanding that every publisher raise the price of all ebooks by 50%. Publishers were happy to oblige. Amazon wasn't hurt - they still dominate the market. The only people who lost were consumers (like you!). People like you lost big time. Go cheer for the people who beat the shit out of you some more. It amuses them.

I'm 100% positive that that's absolutely not what happened. Funny sense of re-writing reality you have there. I've heard a term for that before, I'm sure you bandied it about before...

RTFA. That is exactly what happened, well at least the spirit of things. They told the publishers that they could set their own prices, but no one is allowed to sell for lower. This helped Apple, since they didn't have to fight over price (with their ridiculous mark-up) with Amazon (with their huge market share, and existing infrastructure, and contracts). It didn't do much to Amazon. But it screwed consumers.

90% to 60%, and no longer able to bully the publishers around to the same extent as before. I don't know how you can think that doesn't count as being "hurt". Perhaps if that three-letter term I referenced above would come to me, what is it?...

So basic economics is only useful as long as it doesn't hurt your favorite company? Amazon had a larger customer base, more infrastructure, more experience, more contacts, and thus more buying power. Normally this would mean they could leverage lower prices. But... being that this wasn't good for Apple, this is wrong now?

None of this really matters though, all that matters is if Apple actually engaged in price fixing. Which is illegal. And has been for a long time. Nintendo got busted for it in the 80's. The RIAA got busted in the 90's. So if Apple did the same thing, they should get busted now. Being a bully is legal. Price fixing isn't. Look up the definition of "price fixing", look up the actual facts of the case... This is all that matters, not what you feel about Amazon, or Apple.

You mean how I now have more plentiful options for eBooks? Wow, I'm soooooo hurt!

Before this there were multiple sources of ebooks. But... and this is all that matters to me, they were at different prices. Amazon might be cheaper, or Kobo, or Barnes and Noble, or... even Apple. Now we might have more sources, but who cares, they all cost the same (too much). Not that it matters to me anymore, I refuse to buy ebooks until they actually cost as much as I see their worth (less than actual books, since they aren't material, I don't own them, they aren't permanent, and I can't share them, and if Apple or whoever don't like me they can make them go away). Back before Apple screwed us, I loved them. Now... I'm waiting for the law, or publishers, to realize that the writing is on the wall.

They've offered products which I've willingly paid for.

At an artificially inflated price. And you have no choice than to pay that price, unlike almost any other product in the world. The real book, I can get cheaper, I can get discounted, I can get as a loss-leader, I can get clearance, I can get second hand, or at near wholesale... The ebook, I can't.

Its not amusing at all. Amazon dominate by competing on old fashioned things like price,

Competing on price is an understatement. Amazon was losing money on purpose; it's more fair to say Amazon was competing via predatory pricing [wikipedia.org]. Lose money on books now until everyone else has been run out of business, then significantly raise the prices once they're the only game in town. The outcome of that would have been something that would have benefited no one but Amazon.

It is dirt cheap to sell ebooks. There is almost no barrier to entry at all, especialy for an established retailer. Therefore, your scenario can't happen, because as soon as Amazon raises the price the competitors will re-appear. Yes, in some industries predatory pricing is a real problem. Ebooks is not one of those industries.

90% is not really a valid number. Amazon had 90% market share because they had no competition. B&N and Borders didn't even have an ereader for a several years. Apple came in 5 years too late. Amazon never had a true monopoly. Of course Amazon lost share once others entered the market. And while they lost share they didn't lose customers. There were still growing like hell converting their customers from physical to digital.

Let's say the eBook market before Apple's entry was 1,000 sales (it wasn't, but it makes the math easy), and they had 90%. That means they sold 900 eBooks.

If Apple enters, and the market increases by 50%, and Amazon still sells the same 900 that they did before (assuming flat growth without the customers Apple brings to the market), then they now have 60% with the exact same amount of sales.

Market share numbers are useless without knowing total sales volume within the market, and period-over-period growth

Amazon "dominance" was totally a result of them converting their existing physical book customers into digital customers. They were doing this years before Apple even put out the IPad. B&N, and Kobo were also late. They were out there with only Sony as a competitor. So they had 90% share when it was them vrs Sony. Sony didn't have a huge website with millions of book sales. So of course Sony was clobbered. When Amazon main physical book rival B&N came out with the Nook their share went down. Then the Apple launched IBooks and prices went up on best sellers. Then their was the lawsuit. Then prices went down.

What is wrong with being a monopoly? Simply being a monopoly is not a problem, and is not illegal. What IS illegal is when the power of that monopoly is used to gain an unfair (anticompetitive) advantage in a DIFFERENT area.

Price fixing e-books? Yippie disposable income doesn't actually rate at this point; we have bigger problems.

Yeah it kind of does. Ignoring the fact that this is also about protecting education...and history has taught us how important that is, and well books are kind of a big deal from a political perspective..from an information perspective...its why people want to burn them. This is an open attack on capitalism, and on the consumer by Apple which needs an immediate ban on Apple products. Books are precious

It is not only important, but Apple employees need to start being Jailed starting with the board.

A tried and true false equivalency argument. Afterall, if the world isn't perfect we can't think some things are bad and deserved to be punished. But why are you worried about those silly little Justice department issues when there are so many other important issues? See, false equivalency can get you too, until world peace exists and everyone lives in a mansion there are far bigger problems than tackling the real crime we can prosecute today.